The Ground War in Afghanistan

Great Debates
1

The real war has started.

Has it been going on for some time, or are we just learning now?

Why is the government basically announcing the beginning of the ground war? Wouldn’t secret be better?

Will the U.S. be successful in ousting the Taliban and destroying Al Qaeda?

Should we use special forces only, or are conventional troops the better option?

How will the Afghani people react to our troops?

What happens if the Taliban capture American soldiers?

How will the American people react to any bad news? Obviously the risk of American casualties, captures, or fights with Afghanis just went up exponentially.

Is it the right thing to do, or should the U.S. continue with the Kosovo air power only model?

To kick it off, I think our national survival is at stake. We have no choice but to go in with ground troops, whatever the risks of casualties, torture, or to world opinion. Al Qaeda wants the U.S. destroyed and will not rest until we or they are destroyed. I don’t think air power had a chance of doing the job by itself, and continued bombing without ground action would have led to a worsening of Arab opinion regarding the U.S.–if that is possible. Opinions?, feel free to ignore some of the questions, partial credit is available.

2

Chances are it has been going on for some time. British SAS troops were reported to be on the gournd two or three weeks ago.

None of this should be any great surprise. It has been generally accepted that ground troops were to be deployed at some point during this campaign. Special Forces are known to have operated within Iraq prior to ground operations during the Gulf War.

The government hasn’t. Time Magazine did. That’s not to be flippant, BTW; there is some tactical value to having the Taliban checking for Green Berets under their beds.

As this is apparently a Search and Destroy mission, and there is no political will for a lengthy occupation, then Special forces seems the way to go. That’s not to say that plans may not change if this drags out for months or years.

Well, some Amercian aviators were captured by Iraq during the Gulf War, I would use their treatment as a starting point.

You tell me.

3

Just a few quick comments.

I think that Time article is a little shrill, and very much an opinion piece. There are actually few facts known as yet. The Washington Post broke the story yesterday, and AFAIK there’s still been no official confirmation of troops in Afghanistan. The basics, though, can aslo be found here at CNN.com.

Alos, not to quibble, but as a onetime Air Force brat, I have to point out that the “real war” has been going on for 13 days. And the few handfulls of spec ops in Afghanistan are not anything like a full-fledged gound invasion a la Kuwait.

Definitely for a few days, possibly longer. But remember, all we know from the unidentified Pentagon source is that a small number of troops have been in the North for a little while.

It is my belief (not confirmed by the Pentagon) that some troops have been operating in the South for some time, active in recon and support of the CIA’s efforts to raise a taleban opposition.

Well, I don’t think they are, really. Again, this is nothing like the Sandbox in 1990-1. We’ve pretty much assumed that some groundpounders have been in country, or would be soon. As to whether it would be better to have kept this secret, I don’t know. I suspect knowing that there could be Green Berets or Rangers anywhere in Afghanistan would make many of the taleban want to shit.

:shrug:

Different missions require different force capabilities. Our objective is not to occupy Afghanistan. I suspect we’ll not see a major ground buildup, opting instead for fast, mobile teams with very localized objectives.

The same way poor people have always reacted to invaders. They’ll be terrified. Some will be angry enough to oppose the US forces, most will try to keep their heads down and pray to God they susrvie and can get enough to eat tomorrow.

:shrug: My guess would be an immediate demand for their release and a very hard non-negotiation stance from Mr. Rumsfeld and Mr. Bush

Again, we’re talking a very small number of troops at the moment. But of course we don’t want to see soldiers coming home in bags. I think, though, that mamories of September 11 will steel peoples’ resolve for a while yet.

Apples and oranges. Actually, more like apples and rotary engines. In Kosovo, we worked closely with the KLA, essentially providing them air support against the Serbs. Or objectives in Kosovo were different, and our commitment.

{fixed code. --Gaudere}

[Edited by Gaudere on 10-21-2001 at 10:55 PM]

4

I should clarify. What I mean by the “real war” is that now our troops are supposedly not just scouting or lasing targets, but perhaps caving for terrorists. This is dangerous business and the risks of U.S. or civilian casualties are now dramatically increased.

As for the news, the government could deny our ground troops are in search and destroy mode. Maybe the government has, I don’t know. I do know the media has for days been saying troops were going in, now the Media reports they are in. However,…

El_Kabong I agree that it is good to have the Taliban and Al Qaeda thinking about possible U.S. troops on the ground. Hopefully that will flush some of them out and put them on the run.

Since you asked, I am concerned that many Americans are not ready for the realities of what may happen to our troops if captured. Many people do not remember the Vietnam War. I was 10 when it ended myself. I think the Iraquis may turn out to be benevolent to prisoners compared to what the Taliban would do. Under Sharia (Islamic law) killing them on the spot as invaders of Islamic land is certainly possible.

andros A “:shrug:” about our chances for success makes me think maybe we should have ignored Pakistan and gone with a Northern Alliance strategy. Let them do the grunt work and send in some U.S. “advisors” (with some laser target designators and supplies) to help them. If your CNN article is correct, that may be what we are doing. The Time article has a different tone, I agree.

I am not demeaning the Air Force. I just think that the war is more “real” now because Afghani strength, what there is of it, is ground based. They now have the home field advantage. [sub]another silly sports metaphor[/sub] Our Air Force had the strategic advantage when it deployed.

I fear if troops are captured that no amount of tough talk by Rumsfeld will prevent their torture and execution. This execution might be videotaped, along with some kind of “trial” for invading a Muslim nation under Sharia. The PR could backfire on them, cause Americans to blanch and fuel a desire to pull out, or inflame other Muslims into believing the Kafirs are taking over.

The Kosovo model was not very effective in preventing genocide on the ground, so I agree that the strategy must change. Tracking down the Taliban and Al Qaeda, even with NA help, will be difficult. Also, the geopolitical dynamic is different. The Russians do not think of Afghanistan as a sister state as they do Serbia.

Forgive my not quoting everything I respond to. I tried to be clear.

5

The shrug arises from my inherent distrust for our stated objectives in this campaign. Will we wipe out terrorism? No. Will we destroy the Taleban and al Qaeda? As organizations, probably. Will we kill all members of those groups? Hell no. Will we end the ahtred those individuals feel? Nope.

I think, and so far it seems the administration agrees, that an alliance with the Northern Alliance is a remarkably poor idea, considering their abysmal record of governance and at human rights, not to mention their propensity for heron traffic. We’ve had too many deals with the devil in recent history–with friends like the NA we’ll never want for enemies.

6

Errr, heroin. The Northern Alliance might be a lot of things, but I’ll never accuse them of trafficking in large graceful birds.

7

Well, of course the difference here is that neither Viet Nam nor the Gulf War were sparked by a major attack on American soil. If anything, the government is acting more cautiously than a considerable fraction of the public thinks it should.

Next, not to be cold about this, at the moment only a relatively small fraction of the forces in the region are directly involved in the fighting, thus the potential for a large scale massacre of American troops is small. The possibility of something like a truck bomb attack on an American barracks is something else entirely and not to be discounted.

As far as a ground campaign is concerned, the worst-case scenario would be the wiping out of a large expeditionary force in some mountain pass. This seems unlikely to occur at the current level of hostilities.

There already is a worrisome tendency in the US to think of the Afghanis as a primitive tribal people whose lives are inherently of little value. If the Taliban were somehow to take American prisoners and then execute them, it would show mainly that they have no understanding at all of their enemy. I believe that all such an act would accomplish would be to increase the willingness of the US to employ weapons of mass destruction.

8

Good one about the Northern Alliance:

http://www.nationalpost.com/home/story.html?f=/stories/20011019/744421.html

Anyone know what this site is?

9

andros:

Nothing like breasts to perk up peoples’ spirits!

10

andros I agree. I think a “Northern Alliance strategy” would have been better termed an “indigenous troops strategy.” How about a “Northern Alliance, Southern Pushtun, Taliban defectors strategy”? I don’t think a government of just one splinter group will last for long. Civil war is endemic in Afghanistan due to the horrible recent history. Nation building will be the toughest part.
Heroin is ubiquitious in Afghanistan, the Taliban are dope dealers also. I don’t think we can achieve a government that eliminates poppy plants. That is where they get hard currency to pay their army. “Herooooin, will be the death of me.”–Lou Reed
El Kabong All I was saying about the Vietnam War is that was the last time a foreign power had a lot of U.S. prisoners that were treated horribly. As a result of the passage of time most Americans are unfamiliar with what can happen to POWs. I was not comparing the war to Vietnam, unless one lives in Berkley or Cambridge the differences are crystal clear.
If we used weapons of mass destruction in response to an execution, those Al Qaeda or Taliban leaders that survived might view it as insturumental in attaining their goal of a united Arab Nation. I doubt our leaders would employ WMDs, even if the polls said it was popular, barring first use by someone else.

11

I just saw on CNN where the Taliban said something like, “If you want a real fight, send in 100,000 ground troops.”

My first thought was, “Um, in case you didn’t get the memo, you’re in a real fight already.”

My second thought was, “We’ve been trying to dig you out for two weeks now. You come out.”

Third thought: 30,000 rag-tag, artillery-less, tank-less, communication-less, technology-less Taliban “soldiers” vs. 100,000 of the best trained, best equipped soldiers from all over the world…be seated early folks because this one won’t make it through the first round.

Fourth and final thought: I fart in your general direction.

12

Fox News and CNN are reporting that 200 Army Rangers are attacking something somewhere in Afghanistan, maybe in the North.

Not very specific, but that’s ok.

13

That would be 120 Rangers, probably, which is one company. Probably from 1st Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment (just a guess). Doing a quick job on an airfield, which is their specialty.

The OP asked about what “we” would do if Americans are caught on the ground. If they are Rangers, the answer is simple- the Rangers have never left a man in enemy hands, alive or dead. IIRC, when those 16 Rangers (alive, wounded & dead) were stuck in Mogadishu, the Rangers killed about 300 Somali soldiers getting all of their guys back. They take it very seriously, see the link in my sig or any Ranger or special operations website.

14

According to reports, the British SAS has been on the ground since days after the New York attack.

There is not much to hide from the Taleban. Their limited means of response allows for a larger degree of openness than might otherwise be prudent. Besides, the damage to the American economy is by and large a matter of perception and therefore that which can shift that perception may prove to be of some worth in our recovery.

We had better be. To not do so will simply guarantee another atrocity like New York. I would go one step further and say that Ramadan be d@mned. However much it would be nice to display the laudable respect shown for this important Muslim observance during the Gulf War, we are not fighting against Muslims. We are pursuing mass murdering criminals and any respite given them only represents further opportunity for them to retaliate again. That the Muslim community might construe this as disrespect for their religion must not be allowed to outweigh concerns for our nation’s security. I believe that we have shown sufficient consideration already and whatever condemnation we might garner for conducting operations through the period of Ramadan will not demonstrably tilt the playing field any less in our favor than it already is.

I regard the special forces as rather valuable assets in this situation and for the prosecution of the now mandatory ground assault their continued use may represent using a scalpel for a box knife (as it were). Our special forces need to conserved for other theaters that may open up as we uncover the source of the Anthrax bioterrorism not to mention any future attacks.

One can only hope that at the very least they stay out of the way. Any impediment of our troops’ actions must be regarded as active resistance and dealt with accordingly. While minimizing civilian casualties is worthwhile, it must not dissuade us from wholesale prosecution of our objectives. The entire rest of the world has too much to lose if these criminals escape our grasp.

This is one question that has been rather routinely ignored at these boards and merits close scrutiny. I cannot foresee anything but the torture and slaughter of any American soldiers caught in this action. The Taleban have demonstrated no compunctions about abetting the atrocity in New York and it leaves little doubt as to how they regard the Geneva Conventions.

I can only hope that the American people react as they have already. Namely, with a steely resolve to apprehend or exterminate those responsible for 9/11 whatever the cost. We do not have the luxury of faltering in our pursuit of these vermin. The ongoing threat they represent to the civilized world prohibits any such quailing.

Due to the terrain and other logistics a ground assault is pretty much mandatory. Only the immediate surrender of bin Laden and the Al Qaeda network could have possibly prevented this. In fact, it’s better this way as it is far more important to eliminate the Taleban as well in this equation. To do so will require the deployment of ground forces. The risks they face are somewhat ameliorated by their superior weaponry. This will not entirely outweigh the disadvantage posed by the language barrier and inhospitable terrain, but it will substantially reduce our casualties.

15

Hmm. No doubt the Soviet Army thought the same thing.

I worry about US soldiers captured. The Taleban have made it clear that they’ll be following the Mogadishu example and dragging bodies through streets. They are hoping to invoke “the Mogadishu factor” (not my turn of phrase) - mutilate US soldiers, and the US public will want a withdrawal.

Zenster says:

Oh yes you are. The Taleban are Muslims. You mean the US is not fighting Muslims generally, and is at pains to show respect for Islam. Christian Crusaders didn’t give a damn about Islam either. US policy makers will bend over backwards to avoid further analogies to the Crusades. Respect for the Islam festival of Ramadan is one way of doing that.

I pretty much agree with andros otherwise.

16

And here is where we must agree to disagree. I refuse to taint the rest of the Islamic faith by affiliating the Taleban with them. However much I feel that the rest of the Moslem countries could be doing more to rout out the Taleban, I nonetheless cannot accept the Taleban as any valid representation of the Muslim religion. Ramadan is exactly the sort of breather that bin Laden and Al Qaeda need to slip out of Afghanistan and start their attacks all over again. I believe that we are in for a penny and in for a pound. And pound the crap out of the Taleban we must. What is the sacrilige in prosecuting vermin who have sullied the name of Islam for decades to come? To put it in an overly rude fashion; I don’t think that too many Afghans will be prevented from making this year’s Haj by our military action. Again, this falls into the category of discussion my “What Price Perception” thread attempted to address.

I know that some view this as overly simplistic, but the chance of another attack resulting from any respite being given to these scum is plainly unacceptable. The utter and total disregard for human life shown by the terrorists so completely outweighs any minor disregard we are forced to show during the prosecution of this campaign that I fail to see the benefit of it.

I would certainly welcome the observations of Tamerlane or The Muslim Guy concerning this (non) dilemma.

17

They should be hungry and weak.

18

Too effing funny, Beagle!

19

Cool. That is a fair approach to the Taleban. It is not shared by Muslims, as far away as Indonesia. Muslims look at this as the US pounding an Islamic country. I get the impression they think something like this: “The Taleban are Islamic extremists. But they’re Muslims getting beaten up by Christians.”

I would, too.

20

I am glad to say that here we are in full agreement.